If you divide the atrociousness of the new rule by the amount of discussion it has generated, is this one the winner? Assign both numbers a value from 1-10 and tell me if there is a better candidate.

This weekend and next there are four advanced players pre-registered to play intermediate. One of them is 942 rated. All of them get to play intermediate if they want to.

Feel free to discuss among yourselves. My mind is closed. :D

I'm not saying that any of them are actually going to play intermediate. I'mhoping they all can switch and do switch. I'm hating on the rule, not the players.

Which exemption would they be using?

Which exemption would they be using?


The "two week free pass" exemption?

Which exemption would they be using?


The "two week free pass" exemption?


Uh, make that the "pre-registration two week free pass" exemption.

Make that the "Pre-register with confidence" exemption. :cool:

there are currently 2 in the same position playing texas states this weekend!! :confused:

TDs who take preregistrations and are worried about it could just not schedule events when the 2-week periods occur. Or they could only accept pre-reg from pros until the ratings are posted. Otherwise, is it a big deal? I actually had a player ask what the rule was. Without telling his new rating, I told him he would be well above the 955 threshold. So he decided to play Open instead of Advanced which seemed like the honorable thing to do (he was 985).

sounds like a flaw in the ratings system and or the rules that apply to such!!

Efrain --- there's also a Rec player (who won his last Rec event) that is now rated 892. I doubt he'll move up to Int. where he belongs though. Even though it's the manly* and sportsman thing to do.

*(Yes, I'm implying that you are less than a man if your new rating moves you up to the next division, but you still play in the lower division for the next two weeks because you "pre-registered".)

It should be like the current vs non current PDGA players. The TD's get a list of who is current, those not on the list have to pay the $5 fee.

For players who preregistered in Intermediate, thinking they were intermediate players must face the music when they show up as advanced players. Just like people who thought their PDGA membership never expired have to pay the fee the following spring when they forgot to renew.

It is only fair to the true intermediate players. Quite often these advanced players signed up as intermediate have not played many tournaments and did not know their skill level. Take my buddy who played his first MA2 event, first PDGA event, and averaged 955, his new rating (not his home courses). After the tournament, before the ratings he already decided to move up to advanced.

Make those guys play MA1. Baggers.

TDs who take preregistrations and are worried about it could just not schedule events when the 2-week periods occur. Or they could only accept pre-reg from pros until the ratings are posted. Otherwise, is it a big deal?



:p :p yeah ok!! rotflmfao!!!!!!!!!

The ratings are right now ready to go for the current member lists to TDs. There's no technical reason why there needs to be a grace period. However, the PDGA policy makers decided to allow the grace period so that players wouldn't wait to register for events. Of course earlier pre-reg helps TDs for planning. What should be the PDGA policy if you think it's not right?

A policy of T.S dude, your no longer qualified for a protected division.

Move up.

That's fine if by moving up you didn't have to fork out additional cash and the day didn't change. In Bruce's example, the players would need to come a day earlier (advanced on Saturday, Intermediate on Sunday) and cough up more $.

This also affects the buddies he was planning on carpooling with, etc. Not so simple.

A policy of T.S dude, your no longer qualified for a protected division. Move up.

"T.S. dude" has some merit. You don't move your rating across a divisional cap without kicking some hindquarters in the lower division first. Someone told me that one of these guys won his last two tournaments in a ratings capped division, so now he's what, going for the trifecta? :confused:

TDs who take preregistrations and are worried about it could just not schedule events when the 2-week periods occur. Or they could only accept pre-reg from pros until the ratings are posted. Otherwise, is it a big deal? I actually had a player ask what the rule was. Without telling his new rating, I told him he would be well above the 955 threshold. So he decided to play Open instead of Advanced which seemed like the honorable thing to do (he was 985).

and this from one of the most sensible BoD/PDGA movers and shakers!

hey TD's, whats the big deal - you just follow the PDGA ratings/division guidelines most of the time except when its not convenient, or else just dont bother taking registrations until wednesday before the saturday start!

in other words - either run a crappy event that no one can plan for, or disregard the PDGA's own standards.

so far the "T.S. Dude" approach is the winner by far in this one. its consistent with both PDGA policy and common sense - an increasingly rare alignment these days.

TDs who take preregistrations and are worried about it



Note the words: "are worried about it." I didn't say they should be worried about the grace period and I doubt many are. But if they were, they can schedule events on 42 weekends a year when it won't impact them. Seems pretty sensible.

Kudos to the tExas states td's!!!

"The two ma2�s with advanced ratings are being bumped to ma1 � Texas States will sponsor the fee increase

The three ma3�s with ma2 ratings are being bumped to ma2 - Texas States will sponsor the fee increase"

Well the PDGA doesnt exactly give that much freedom in scheduling not too mention that they scheduled Texas States for this weekend.

So it's not exactly that simple but it's not really that big of an issue either.

I still think players should be allowed to stay in one division for a season/series in their location regardless of their rating improvement. When they travel out of their area, then their rating would take precedence.

I'm not necessarily in favor of the grace period, but understand why TDs would want that so prereg changes aren't a hassle.

I still think players should be allowed to stay in one division for a season/series in their location regardless of their rating improvement. When they travel out of their area, then their rating would take precedence.



So in other words, the ratings don't mean anything in a series, so play whatever division you want and you don't have to move up??????? BUT if you go somewhere else, you have to play by the rules.

Sorry Chuck, either you go by ratings or you don't. Otherwise, why do we need ratings or rules governing what division you should play in? :confused:

Just because someone gets better during a season, they shouldn't have to give up their chance at series awards. Lebron was obviously college or pro caliber while still in HS and yet he was able to lead his HS team toward the State title. How hollow is the series victory for the second place person if they win it because the leading Intermediate player for the first 7 of 10 series events is forced into Advanced for the last 3 events? In most amateur sports, you get to play at your level: 3.5 tennis, AA softball or volleyball for the season. Then, you are reassessed at the end of the season and bumped up or down for the next season.

Just because someone gets better during a season, they shouldn't have to give up their chance at series awards. Lebron was obviously college or pro caliber while still in HS and yet he was able to lead his HS team toward the State title. How hollow is the series victory for the second place person if they win it because the leading Intermediate player for the first 7 of 10 series events is forced into Advanced for the last 3 events? In most amateur sports, you get to play at your level: 3.5 tennis, AA softball or volleyball for the season. Then, you are reassessed at the end of the season and bumped up or down for the next season.



Most Amatuer sports have divisions based on age or high school attendance.

The examples I gave are specifically skill based and I'm sure there are are quite a few more. We're only talking about situations where a player is involved in a specific series and sometime during it, they improve to the next level. If they enter events outside the series, they should be entering at their current level. But they shouldn't be required to sacrifice their series results and move up if they have been working toward winning a specific series, just because they got a little bit too good before the series ends.

Get rid of all these ridiculous divisions and that problem nearly disappears.

Has this changed ?

It was written into the original ratings guides.

...along with all of the players...

says you....

Has this changed ?



The series exemption has been there for quite a while. It's being regurgitated as support for the more minor 2-week grace period.

says you....

Well common sense will tell you that if you remove some of the (uneccessary) divisions then the occurances of players getting better then the rest in their division within the year will drop since there are less divisions that can happen in.

I guess you could argue that taking away pacifiers would cause people to push out their bottom lip and take their discs home. But since we are talking about an "adult" sport, i say good riddance :eek: :D

Who said what?

Scott is right though, without all these divisions, it wouldn't be a big deal. Also, if these guys didn't have a financial incentive to bag, they would move up. There is very little doubt about that.

There must be a deep rooted philosophical difference here. We don't use a series exemption for our series. Improving rapidly is its own reward. :cool: Series awards in capped divisions are a nice little bonus for those players who are not improving rapidly but are supporting the series with regular attendance.

Seriously, I'd like to see examples in other sports where players are forced into a higher division when they improve too fast during a series. Anyone? Every example we've seen over the years does not require defaulting your series results.

Well, baseball and hockey and basketball all bring good players up from the minors mid-season. "Wait, I want to finish out the season on the Lugnuts. We could win the division!" I know in Lorrie's sport they have a lot of complicated bump rules but I don't know if they have serieses. From reading a program it looked like if you qualified for moving up, you had to move up. They also had limitations on playing up before being bumped up, which was intriguing.

To make a good apples to apples comparison you would need another sport with an objective ratings system and serieses. Tennis, anyone?

Seriously, I'd like to see examples in other sports where players are forced into a higher division when they improve too fast during a series. Anyone? Every example we've seen over the years does not require defaulting your series results.


Baseball.

A pitcher goes 6-0, 1.59 ERA to start the season in AA. He gets called up to the AAA team, where he goes 5-3, 3.12 ERA. Then they call him up to the big league team, where he sits in the bullpen and mops up some meaningless games in September. If they just left him in AA for the season, maybe he goes 21-4, 2.14 ERA and wins the AA Cy Young award or something. Instead, he didn't get to stay and keep winning, and ended up making a bigger salary sitting in the ML bullpen at the end of the year.

My thoughts on the rule issue...charge the same for all am divisions. Makes it easier on TDs to shuffle players from one division to another even on the morning of the tournament. And for those events scheduled just after an update...don't assign those borderline players to a division when they sign-up, let their new rating decide it for them. We've been charging a flat rate for our ams for two years now without much issue at all. Players that want to shift (usually up) on tournament morning aren't a problem for us...they just tell us and we change the division designation on their scoreport card. Easy.

--Josh

What an amusing thread�..

Chuck,

To say the TD's should just plan the tournament dates around ratings is simply not practical. We are trying to schedule around other tournaments, holidays, birthdays, daylight savings time, hurricane seasons, grass burr season, etc. If the ratings updates were set dates it might be easier, but what about the updates last year that were as much as a week late? Assuming the dates are set in stone, and stay that way, I guess it is possible, but not practical to forego a choice weekend because there is a ratings update scheduled.

To everyone else,

Several suggestions have been given and many of them are excellent, here is what I am going to do:

- On all pre-registration forms, I will include "Players must play in ratings appropriate protection division. Should a player's rating change after registration they will be required to move up to the correct division."
- Since it is convenient for me as a TD to have players pre-register, then I as the TD will "sponsor" the cost difference. If other TD's do not believe it is worth the cost I would suggest that you also include the statement "players will be required to pay any price difference." I think that will hurt you, but that is your choice as the TD.
- If a player comes to me with a lower rating, than required for the division they signed up for, I will allow them to drop to the lower ratings appropriate protected division and refund any price difference.

As far as series go, if they are PDGA sanctioned events, then we should be following PDGA guidelines. If their ratings move them up, they have to move up. One suggestion maybe to relook at how points are developed in series play, but since I don't run a series event I will admit that I am ignorant on this one.

And for a compete drift I am also considering paying the PDGA fees for 1st place amateur winners if they are not current members. This would come out of there winnings and while it would reduce the return to the TD I think it would be worth it. This will certainly kill some of the bagging going on by non-registered / non-current members and will help to increase the ranks of the PDGA membership.

The baseball example would be the whole team moving up, not one player. No AA team is moved to the Majors when they've won their first 20 games. In tennis, when you are playing on a 3.5 team, the whole team or members of the team may move up or down after the season. If there's a hot 4.0 player on 3.5 team, they finish out the league and get bumped once the team and individual's results are processed by the USTA. In fact, part of the strategy is to find those potentially fast improving players for your team.

Josh,

I am not argueing, but if you are doing this juggling in the morning, it will effect timing. Also, what about the player that wants to play up with his buddies? I also don't believe that a Rec player should be charged the same as an Advanced player. The advanced player should be a much more competitive player. I guess if you are running a trophy only event or if all the payout is in the player's package, this could work.


My thoughts on the rule issue...charge the same for all am divisions. Makes it easier on TDs to shuffle players from one division to another even on the morning of the tournament. And for those events scheduled just after an update...don't assign those borderline players to a division when they sign-up, let their new rating decide it for them. We've been charging a flat rate for our ams for two years now without much issue at all. Players that want to shift (usually up) on tournament morning aren't a problem for us...they just tell us and we change the division designation on their scoreport card. Easy.

--Josh

As far as series go, if they are PDGA sanctioned events, then we should be following PDGA guidelines.


But the guilelines include bump-forgivness for series.


And for a compete drift I am also considering paying the PDGA fees for 1st place amateur winners if they are not current members.


This is in the recommendations in the TourStandards document. (http://pdga.com/documents/td/06TourStandards.pdf)
I like that idea, but as a TD I find it a bit cumbersome to give that out as a prize. 1. You lose the markup on the typical prizes so there is an economic disincentive. 2. What if the top several finishers are already members? Yeah late in the year, it'd be nice to give them a renewal, but in the spring? 3. More paperwork, and I hate paperwork.


This will certainly kill some of the bagging going on by non-registered / non-current members.


HFDS does our own ratings that somewhat mirror the PDGA ratings (and even rates non-club members that play leagues, tournaments, etc.) to solve the bagging problem. Yeah, it's more work, but it certainly helps the bagging "problem".

At this point, it's not what a TD wants to do, but what the rules are. PDGA members are allowed to play in a lower division based on their pre-update rating for the two weekends after a ratings update as long as they are preregistered. There's no TD choice even if the TD announces in advance. Players are also allowed to remain in the lower division they started with in a series regardless if their rating goes above the break IF the rules of the series specified this exemption before the series starts. In this case, the series director can choose to offer the exemption or not. If you wish to change these PDGA policies, you must lobby the Co-Competition Directors, John Chapman and Dave Gentry.

Our Minnesota Summer Series dates back into the 80s. No one has ever been forced to move up during the season. However, the way the series point system works, it's your best four events that count toward the yearend awards. It seems half the time there's an Intermediate player who has four wins by mid-season and moves up to try and also cash in the yearend awards for Advanced. Players who do this are candidates for our Shooting Star award.

Josh,

I am not argueing, but if you are doing this juggling in the morning, it will effect timing. Also, what about the player that wants to play up with his buddies? I also don't believe that a Rec player should be charged the same as an Advanced player. The advanced player should be a much more competitive player. I guess if you are running a trophy only event or if all the payout is in the player's package, this could work.


My thoughts on the rule issue...charge the same for all am divisions. Makes it easier on TDs to shuffle players from one division to another even on the morning of the tournament. And for those events scheduled just after an update...don't assign those borderline players to a division when they sign-up, let their new rating decide it for them. We've been charging a flat rate for our ams for two years now without much issue at all. Players that want to shift (usually up) on tournament morning aren't a problem for us...they just tell us and we change the division designation on their scoreport card. Easy.

--Josh





Fair point about timing, but in my experience, what affects timing most is when you say registration ends at 9:30 before a 10am tee off and 10 players show up right at 9:29...or half your field shows up between 9 to 9:30 (and registration opened at 7:30 or 8:00). When we're still signing players up at 9:45-9:50 because of a long line, that affects timing. If a player approaches us late in the process and asks to change divisions...we do so, but if the scoreport is set and holes assigned, he's stuck where he is, group-wise, for round 1. Most folks understand and accept that without issue. We also don't take requests for playing groups...only the TD gets preferential treatment on group-mates and hole assignments. Even I don't get a choice except *maybe* I get a close hole to start on.

As I'm sure you know, we do run trophy-only, player pack heavy tournaments for our ams...everyone pays the same and gets the same. There's no advantage to playing "down" or "up", so players tend to go where they are rated or have the best chance to compete. Most players choose their division with an eye towards our overall series...a couple decided to start the season in Adv despite <900 ratings. With the new update (2 tourneys into the season), they are now rated >915 and are already where they belong.

--Josh

You are correct on timing with allowing late registeration, but anyone who has played my tournaments will tell you that if I say player's meeting at 9:00, tee off at 9:30, then I start tee off 9:30. I am unlike a lot of TD's in that way. If players come to sign up at 9:00 and I am not there to take their money, they are not playing. I know that a lot of TD's want to get as many people in as possible, but if all TD's stuck their timing, players would quit trying to push their time and would start getting there on time. I felt bad at my last tournament because I said 2nd round tee off was at 1:30 and I started it at 1:35.

I also tend not to go to tournaments that continue to slide starts.




Fair point about timing, but in my experience, what affects timing most is when you say registration ends at 9:30 before a 10am tee off and 10 players show up right at 9:29...or half your field shows up between 9 to 9:30 (and registration opened at 7:30 or 8:00). When we're still signing players up at 9:45-9:50 because of a long line, that affects timing. If a player approaches us late in the process and asks to change divisions...we do so, but if the scoreport is set and holes assigned, he's stuck where he is, group-wise, for round 1. Most folks understand and accept that without issue. We also don't take requests for playing groups...only the TD gets preferential treatment on group-mates and hole assignments. Even I don't get a choice except *maybe* I get a close hole to start on.

As I'm sure you know, we do run trophy-only, player pack heavy tournaments for our ams...everyone pays the same and gets the same. There's no advantage to playing "down" or "up", so players tend to go where they are rated or have the best chance to compete. Most players choose their division with an eye towards our overall series...a couple decided to start the season in Adv despite <900 ratings. With the new update (2 tourneys into the season), they are now rated >915 and are already where they belong.

--Josh

You should relax alittle, you'll live longer :)

What is the intent of this rule? Is it to give unfair advantage to players that are quickly improving? It makes no sense in the digital age at all. I think these rules were written not to protect the bagger, but for convenience of the TDs back in the stone age days :eek: when computers were slower, or the wireless internet didn't exist and getting rating verification was more difficult.

Chuck,

Two things, first in regards to TD's running a series. If the TD has made the decision to allow player's to stay in the same division, they have already realized the possibility and filed with the PDGA to allow it. This is a requirement. If it was not filed, then by the tour guideline, the player MUST play in the appropriate division. If the TD has filed, then the TD is not worried about some players bagging, they are planning on it and this is not an issue. The PDGA allows it.

Second, the tour standard does not say a player with an elevated rating, within the two weeks of a rating update, must be allowed to play the ratings appropriate division from the previous rating, it says they MAY participate for two weeks. Who defines the MAY? Is it the Player? The tour standard does not say that. Is it the TD that MAY allow it? The standard also does not say that, however, if you read the context of the tour standard it appears to me that it is talking to the TD's, not the players. If you tell me that I cannot bump someone, then you have further defined the tour standard. I don't have a problem with that, but I also don't see a problem with the TD determining a player MAY NOT play under their current rating.


At this point, it's not what a TD wants to do, but what the rules are. PDGA members are allowed to play in a lower division based on their pre-update rating for the two weekends after a ratings update as long as they are preregistered. There's no TD choice even if the TD announces in advance. Players are also allowed to remain in the lower division they started with in a series regardless if their rating goes above the break IF the rules of the series specified this exemption before the series starts. In this case, the series director can choose to offer the exemption or not. If you wish to change these PDGA policies, you must lobby the Co-Competition Directors, John Chapman and Dave Gentry.

Our Minnesota Summer Series dates back into the 80s. No one has ever been forced to move up during the season. However, the way the series point system works, it's your best four events that count toward the yearend awards. It seems half the time there's an Intermediate player who has four wins by mid-season and moves up to try and also cash in the yearend awards for Advanced. Players who do this are candidates for our Shooting Star award.

The intent of which rule ?

The 2 week rule allows players near a cutoff to pre-register for events without worrying about whether they will be bumped up a division by the time the event rolls around.

At most events, the division you are playing in does not make much difference in travel plans and rides, but in some events it does.

The series division bump rule is there to allow a player to compete for divisional prizes in the same division for an entire series.

As I read the top of page 7, I think it allows players to remain in their pre-registered division for events in the two weeks following the ratings update regardless of the TD: www.pdga.com/documents/td/06TourStandards.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/06TourStandards.pdf)

Pre-registration is key. Is this not the case?

It says that they may continue to play in the lower division, but if I read this as a TD I believe I can make a case for the TD being the one that may allow them to play in the lower division. For instance if you were to add the words, at the players discretion then I would not have a leg to stand on. On the other hand, the previous two statements are aimed directly at the TD's, the TD must turn the fee's in on time and the TD must enforce the drug policy. If I then read the next items on division ineligibility it appears to say that I as the TD may allow them to play in the lower division. This way if I don't want to mess with forcing a player who has pre-registered to play at their rating then I, as the TD, can allow it.

Though I can also see what you are saying and I can see where you would say pre-registeration is the key, but who is the most convianced by pre-registeration? The TD or the player?


As I read the top of page 7, I think it allows players to remain in their pre-registered division for events in the two weeks following the ratings update regardless of the TD: www.pdga.com/documents/td/06TourStandards.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/06TourStandards.pdf)

Pre-registration is key. Is this not the case?

When in doubt ask the Tour Director, Gentry.

If you turn in your TD reports on time, pay your money promptly, and don't hassle the staff, I suspect you can pretty much do what you want with that.

Whenever I'm in doubt, I've learned not to ask. It is easier to say you're sorry, sometimes, than to get permission! :cool:

Yeah, I see now that I should have kept my mouth shut and just pled ignorance :eek:

What does David have to say about this? Stupid question, I can pretty much guess how it will be ruled. However, now that I go back and look at it, I am second guessing myself. Does it really matter if a player gets to play in a lower division for two weeks? I doubt that a lot of TD's even catch it during most tournaments anyway.....

So Chuck, wouldn't it be better to send a full listing of PDGA members instead of just a regional report? The regional report will not have the player info if a player is from out of the region.


When in doubt ask the Tour Director, Gentry.

That works if you have electronic checking built into the scoring program (like yours, mine, and I think the PDGA's does), but not reasonable for people checking the list manually.

We don't really want the full PDGA ratings file floating around out there. We've heard there are some who might want to mine it for their own org.

that is so ridiculous :confused:

We don't really want the full PDGA ratings file floating around out there. We've heard there are some who might want to mine it for their own org.



Except that anyone who really wants can get it piece by piece from the PDGA site.

It is likely that anyone with the expertise to do anything useful with the list would also have the expertise needed to pull it off of our site a little at a time.

What about a person who has taken cash in a sanctioned event, and then plays Intermediate?

They have to currently be rated below 915 to do so.

what about for females?
same?
they can jump down to INT?

It works the same for women. Pros can play in Intermediate if their rating is under 915.

It's not like you can really take much advantage in the grace period. You might even be embarassed thinking your rating was going up and preregistering in Intermediate and find out you're rating is still there after the update. :o

HHHMMM...
I would find it more embarassing to take money in a PRO event and then play INT

(This is for McCaine) You might win more in Intermediate... :o

jerry, there is a project underway to make state lists available to TDs online. TDs can select the states relevant to them. i dont think i am allowed to show it to you on the dev server yet, but if you have any thoughts about the data and/or features that would make the feature more useful, post them here and we can see if they can fit in.

HHHMMM...
I would find it more embarassing to take money in a PRO event and then play INT



As a female, why? If you take cash competing against other females, great! If you later register at an event, and find that you are the only female, and that your rating places you with the Int men, why not play with them (for the sake of competetion) instead of playing in a division of one and "winning" your entry fee back?

I still think players should be allowed to stay in one division for a season/series in their location regardless of their rating improvement. When they travel out of their area, then their rating would take precedence.



I'd like to see all PDGA members declare their classification and division (which they must qualify for) at the beginning of the year and then stay in that division for the calendar year. This would solve the Master/Open challenges.

HHHMMM...
I would find it more embarassing to take money in a PRO event and then play INT

We have two women playing Pro on Saturday and Men's Rec on Sunday at IOS #1. A lot of players think it is more fun to play in a larger field with lots of people you've never played a round with.

Oh, this is funny. The highest rated woman signed up to play Women's Advanced on Saturday is the second highest rated woman signed up to play Women's Intermediate on Sunday! Naturally she's a junior under 16.

that is so ridiculous :confused:



What is ridiculous? That people would want to do that, or that the PDGA would attempt to prevent it?


Except that anyone who really wants can get it piece by piece from the PDGA site.

It is likely that anyone with the expertise to do anything useful with the list would also have the expertise needed to pull it off of our site a little at a time.



Muhawahahahaha...

Chuck,

As the TD of an event, how do I know if their previous rating allowed them to play in the lower rated division? Do I have to go back into the PDGA website and check every player's previous rating? On the morning of the event there is no easy way for me to tell unless I have the capability to log onto the internet and look at their previous rating.

If they signed up before the ratings update, the only way I would know is if I go online and check. This is not very likely since I generally am to busy preparing for the tournament. The burden of proof must be on the player. I guess they would have to bring a printed copy of their previous rating.

I am back to saying that I have to make them play in the division they are rated for at the time unless the player can prove their previous rating. Now I see it as a big deal since I have to somehow check to see if the player has been truthful.


We don't really want the full PDGA ratings file floating around out there. We've heard there are some who might want to mine it for their own org.

that is so ridiculous :confused:



What is ridiculous? That people would want to do that, or that the PDGA would attempt to prevent it?


Except that anyone who really wants can get it piece by piece from the PDGA site.

It is likely that anyone with the expertise to do anything useful with the list would also have the expertise needed to pull it off of our site a little at a time.



Muhawahahahaha...



Gary answered that for me

Pat,

That would be very cool. I would like to see the availble header so that I can adjust my scoring routine to import the generated file. Right now it uses the regional report and the header row to determine fields, if this header row changes I will need to correct the scoring routine. I will also think about additional fields. One would be previous rating. Thanks.


jerry, there is a project underway to make state lists available to TDs online. TDs can select the states relevant to them. i dont think i am allowed to show it to you on the dev server yet, but if you have any thoughts about the data and/or features that would make the feature more useful, post them here and we can see if they can fit in.

If they signed up before the ratings update, the only way I would know is if I go online and check.



If a TD is doing preregistrations, uploading them to the PDGA site automatically shows the player's rating if they are current PDGA members. All the TD needs to do is look at the ratings online for their pre-reg list just before the Ratings update and make sure everyone is legit in their division. Then, if there are any players who appear to not be in the right division when you get the list just before the tournament, you'll know that was a player whose rating changed their future division.

I think as a practical matter, if you don't have a wireless laptop, you have to go by the ratings list that the PDGA sends you. If it has old numbers you go by old numbers. If it has new, you go by new.

Once we update the online display to freeze what players' ratings were when they played the event, players with higher ratings than normally allowed will be more subject to scrutiny. As it is now, you can't tell whether a player's rating was too high by looking at old results because their current rating is displayed.

Chuck,

I am going to let you in on a little secret, if pre-registeration is slow the TD will not post the registeration for fear the players on the cusp will decide there is not enough people which in turn causes there to be lower entry counts.

However, you do have a good idea. Now what if ratings come out one weekend and the tournament is the next? Most of the pre-registeration comes in that week of the tournament. In the above scenerio posting the pre-registeration will only give you the latest rating and you are back to the point where you don't know without going through every player's previous ratings. I am sure I could come up with a way to automate that check, but for the ordinary TD it would be a lot of work. I would suggest that the regional reports only include the previous rating for the first two weeks after ratings updates, but that would mean that a player with a rating change that allows them to drop to another divison would not be able to take advantage of the lower rating.


If a TD is doing preregistrations, uploading them to the PDGA site automatically shows the player's rating if they are current PDGA members. All the TD needs to do is look at the ratings online for their pre-reg list just before the Ratings update and make sure everyone is legit in their division. Then, if there are any players who appear to not be in the right division when you get the list just before the tournament, you'll know that was a player whose rating changed their future division.

Bruce,

I agree with you, but you will not have old, you will only have the latest rating. So if a rating goes up the player should be moved to the correct divsion, but the Tour Standard does not allow that. Maybe it would be better to say that it MAY not allow it. ;)


I think as a practical matter, if you don't have a wireless laptop, you have to go by the ratings list that the PDGA sends you. If it has old numbers you go by old numbers. If it has new, you go by new.

The 2-week grace period policy was introduced for the benefit of TDs who take preregistrations. If in fact it's not a benefit, then send your comments to Gentry. It's certainly easier for PDGA admin to not have the grace period if most TDs don't want it. Makes no difference to the ratings team. We're just trying to get them out when we promise. Interestingly, Gimp wanted the grace period for his pre-reg at TX States. However, I think they decided to boost those players to their new divisions anyway so it didn't matter.

When is the PDGA going to finally drop that P off the logo, because obviously it should be the Amatuer Disc Golf Association that seems to be the main focus :confused:

Current PDGA Membership:

1838 Pro Men
134 Pro Women

3996 Amateur Men
306 Amateur Women

_________________________________________

146 Pro Men with ratings over 999.

where did you get those numbers? they are off by a decent percentage.

Current PDGA Membership:

1838 Pro Men
134 Pro Women

3996 Amateur Men
306 Amateur Women

_________________________________________



How convinient for stats

66% AMS
33% PROS

And if the current system keeps AMS playing AM so in about 5 years it may be 80% AMS 20% PROS

where did you get those numbers? they are off by a decent percentage.



Looks to me like he got them of the membership page. Same numbers I see.

Current PDGA Membership:

1838 Pro Men
134 Pro Women

3996 Amateur Men
306 Amateur Women

_________________________________________



How convinient for stats

66% AMS
33% PROS

And if the current system keeps AMS playing AM so in about 5 years it may be 80% AMS 20% PROS


Yeah, let's change things so that there are 1200 pros and 300 ams total in the org. That would be a lot better.

That would be great!

NT's = Pros(Open, Masters, Women) Only
A-Tiers = Pros(Open, Masters, Women) &amp; MA1 (women also)
B &amp; C Tiers = Pros, MA1, MA2, REC

Rhett doesn't the P in PDGA stand for something?

where did you get those numbers? they are off by a decent percentage.



Looks to me like he got them of the membership page. Same numbers I see.

that explains it. unfortunately, those numbers must be just members with ratings, or something like that. add em up and you dont get 8343 like the same page says for total members. you get 6274, which is roughly 25% too low.

It does stand for something but not in the way you think.

It does stand for something but not in the way you think.



EXACTLY Thats why they need to change the name to what it REALLY is! The Am Till I die Disc Golf Association :D

Rhett, check back this upcoming monday on the Tulsa Disc Sport Association thread about the Chandler tourney this weekend.

The tourney is unsanctioned, and I will GUARANTEE its the biggest PRO field EVER(exception 85 Worlds) in OK. If it was PDGA sanctioned the PRO field would be 8 players. I bet there will be 40 Open players signed up since its non-sanctioned.

I understand you don't have this problem in CALI but it is sickning in this part of the country :(

kev, why are pro players into the OK event? it is strictly because its non-sanctioned, or is there something about the structure that makes it more desireable? i'm curious what the difference is.

Honestly,

They will be playing OPEN this weekend because it won't ruin their AM eligibility, and they all know they can make money, but don't want to ruin their AM status. They all realize that it is more profitable in OK and TX to play AM.

There are some ADV golfers here in this area that should have been playing OPEN years ago, but why would they? They can play against 5 open players (Myself, Coda and a few others, which they have no chance to cash since only 2 get paid) or they can play with 30-40 ADV players

Which would you pick?

Trust me when I tell you that I lose ALOT to the guys that are cleaning up in the ADV field and selling their discs for profit. In return they are making more money than I am, so why would they move up and get their asses handed to them by Coda or I?

Sure if we could get the majority of ADV players that belong in OPEN to move up. There would be PLENTY of them cashing.

I'm not mad at them either because if I had the option to do so I would play ADV also.

I am very frustrated with the system we live in now but I'm not mad at the players for doing it.

Tournaments with all pros don't have good finances for anyone. You ought to consider having a hybrid non-sanctioned event. A single top division starts at 915 and pays out 50%. Pay out Merch prizes and take the retail/wholesale profit and add cash bonuses to the top places. 60 players pay $40 for $2400 to spend. Let's say $2400 in prizes costs $1500. Top places get combination of merch and the $900 in cash (minus any fees) is spread among the top 5-10 places.

What are your entry fees?

Have you considered lowering them so that the top ams might play pro and decline the cash? At $40 you would probably get some takers testing the waters. At $75 and up probably not.

One last thing: it kinda sounds like you are helping to perpetuate the problem you hate by running unsanctioned tourneys that allow ams to cash without losing their eligibility.

But it creates a large pro division. If being unsanctioned is they only way TX and OK can get it then I say go unsanctioned like the Tx-10

thanks kev, i am starting to understand exactly what you are saying. basically you're running a PRO event with a high enough entry fee and deep enough payout that you maximize the number of players that have a legitimate chance to cash. not necessarily win, but cash. and like you said, without sanctioning these players, prolly 900-950 types, can go for some cash without messing up their pdga amateur status.

chuck, your idea is probably good financially, but it doesnt sound like kevin is trying to create a partially plastic payout. that would kinda reinforce the behavior he is trying to avoid.

i think there is something really good in kevin's idea about 900+ means Pro. take a look at this graph of ratings (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/ratingdistribution.htm) . kevin is moving the line from say 975 all the way down to 900-920. at this point he is attracting pretty much everyone above the median rating - very approxiamtely half of the player base. a 925 player with some wins or strong finishes is likely to believe they have a legitimate chance to take some cash out of a field like that. i completely understand that viewpoint, because i'm 935ish and know what its like to play "up" into a field of people all rated 40 points higher than me and also knowa what its like to be rated in the pack. the first scenario describe me playing Pro Master in a sanctioned event and struggling to avoid DFLing. the second describes most of the minis we have around here - while i have to earn it, i have a serious chance of cashing.

at first glance anyway, his approach combined with <900-915 plastic-cash events and some current/traditional payout schemese would do everything that the current structure does, plus it certainly helps the top pros while developing new pro players.

all you'd have to do to implement it pdga-wide would be to structure it as a ratings event with the top division > 915 and paying cash AND have the pdga establish that no player can lose their "am" status at a ratings event. such an approach might really help acceptance of ratings events also.

anyway, just typing out loud...

i think the fact that him and coda wont be there might help those players in the decision to play up also :D

i think the fact that him and coda wont be there might help those players in the decision to play up also



kind of like the Expert division with no one over 1000...

So then you have 8 "experts" and 2 guys over 1000? Doesn't make since (thanks Steve) to me. I say if your over 974 you get "moved" up.

Get disc golf to a point where the payout is 50% deep in open and last cash is about $300-$500 without gignantic entry fees then the open feilds will start to grow.

Just for giggles I looked at how it could work...

With $50,000 in sponsor cash up for grabs to a feild of 72 Open players paying out 50% of the feild, last cash would be about $500. The TD could charge a $50 entry fee and profit over $3600 if he/she kept the entry fee for themselves.

(that profit assumes the TD could pull the fees and expenses money from sponsorship also, which is reasonable to assume since he got $50k for the payout :) )

Even at 938 PR I would definalty take my chances at getting 10x's my entry just to make the cut, no doubt. Could pay all expenses and still be up a couple hundy. Beats the crap out of a $50-$150 stack of plastic :)

sounds good scott!!

There's only one problem.....

:D

i think there is something really good in kevin's idea about 900+ means Pro. take a look at this graph of ratings (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/ratingdistribution.htm).


From your data chart, if all players rated 900 or above played in one division, the MPO division, then a lot of interesting things start to happen.

First of all, it's 57.7% of all PDGA members in one division. The pro masters and pro GMs will scream bloddy murder about this one, but let's forget that for now.

Secondly, the "pay line" would be at about 949 rated golf for an old school top-third payout.

It looks like it would be around 935 rated for a 50% payout. That's only a 3.5 stroke "better than rated" weekend for the 900 rated player to flirt with the cash line. That looks a lot more do-able than the 5 strokes per round that a 940 rated player would currently have to shoot to cash in MPO today. Add in that the 940 rated player is usually a lot more consistent (that means less likely to shoot "better than rating" golf) than the 900 player, and maybe you are on to something here.

But what does it do for the sport when a 908 rated player is a "cashing pro". Does that really advance the sport of disc golf?

it just might. that 908 player isnt gonna cash every weekend. but his fees will mean a fatter payout for the top 5-10 players, and that helps. plus, keeping the current formula(s) alive would mean the 908 player can dip into the plastic trough on plenty of weekends, so its not being forced permanently on anyone.

scott, if i got a sponsor to put up 50K, i would charge $200 entry, pay the winner about 15-20K, invite all players rated >985, and accept the first NNN that entered. if it didnt fill with 985+, i'd open it up to other players.

one more thing for rhett - MPMs or MGMs who screams bloody murder about having to take their 980-1010 ratings into this kind of field would be certified insane. besides, they could wait til the next weekend and play in some other event that uses the current system. again, they're not hurt by it if they dont wanna play.

Pat, I really don't think that making a rule whereby you can accept cash and retain your am status at one type of PDGA event but not at another type of PDGA event is ever going to fly, so I don't think that is really an option.

I guess I'm saying that throwing that out there as an answer to potential problems isn't working for me. :)

well, if events with formats like kev's become increasingly popular then the pdga's piece of the event pie will shrink. i havent thought the whole thing thru completely, but there do seem to be benefits.

Has hell frozen over?

Has the globe started rotating in the opposite direction?

People are agreeing with me?

wait wait...I just saw a donkey flying outside my window...**** things are really messed up now :D

I keep thinking about this because the numbers seem to make sense as is.

But i have to ask pessimistic questions:

Isn't this how things were done in the "old days" of only about 5 years ago? And also in the "good ole days" of only two divisions? Before ratings, what would be 925-930 rated players were pressured into turning pro because they were beating all the WWB 890 players who were playing up. These "pro" players were up there playing with the Kevin's of the world "getting real world instruction" and all the stuff that Kev is currently pushing. Where are those guys now? If it's the way to go, why aren't those guys still playing?

Where are those guys now? If it's the way to go, why aren't those guys still playing?



Because the ratings came along and those 925-930 guys who are now 940-950 could no longer legitimately pressure the current crop of 925s to move up.


Also in the "old days" the minimum age for Masters was only 35, so some of those 925-930 guys who couldn't compete in Open could hide out there.

I remeber hearing lots of talk about the then 33-36 year olds dropping out, and not coming back until they were 40. Did that actually happen?

I only personally know of one player who quit playing tournaments at that time until she turned 40.

Me too.

Taken from another thread: Name this Disc Golfer


This disc golfer has been known to:

a: Sell plastic (from his 17th advanced victory without moving up to pro) in the parking lot at the local minis.

b. Voted Tulsa's biggest dorkball not name Richard Mitchell or Twoputt.

c. Casts a shadow similar to that of Homer Simpson.



The funny thing is that it took a few guesses cuz it could have been one of many

The dropoff in Master participation was not insignificant when the age changed. I don't remember what the numbers were but it was looked at. I personally dropped my participation in 2000-2002 when I was forced back to Master from GM for three years.

b. Voted Tulsa's biggest dorkball not name Richard Mitchell or Twoputt.


What's wrong with Richard Mitchell? He's one of the few guys that can match my chatter. :)

b. Voted Tulsa's biggest dorkball not name Richard Mitchell or Twoputt.


What's wrong with Richard Mitchell? He's one of the few guys that can match my chatter. :)



Personally, I don't think you are in the same league as Mitchell. :cool:

I didn't create the quiz....you would have to ask the author of that one

if you needed the answer



Chris Hutchinson




Thats him, this sorry SOB tried to charge me full price for a used disc just last night. Not to mention I just helped him win 1st place $$ in draw dubs. What a douchebag. :o